A Comparative Study: Treaty Making with the Indians and Relocation

This essay examines the history of treaty making with the Indians, focusing on the displacement and relocation of indigenous populations by Europeans in both the United States and Canada. It highlights the contrasting approaches taken by the two countries, noting the gradual process in America through judicial pronouncements like Johnson v. McIntosh (1823), Cherokee v. Georgia (1831), and Worcester v. Georgia (1832), versus the more drastic approach in Canada with the 1876 Indian Act. The essay also delves into the events leading to Treaty 7, including the promise of railway construction, the need for assistance with buffalo epidemics, and the influence of Chief Crowfoot. It emphasizes the significance of treaties from the perspective of elderly natives, who viewed them as a means to facilitate land surrender in specific circumstances, such as matrimonial ceremonies, gifts to spiritually enlightened individuals, and peaceful dispute resolution.

Running head: TREATY MAKING WITH THE INDIANS
TREATY MAKING WITH THE INDIANS
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1TREATY MAKING WITH THE INDIANS
Several surreptitious methods were undertaken by the Europeans to displace and relocate
the Indians from their original land. The Europeans had utilized the rhetoric of civilizing mission
to dominate over the indigenous Indians by justification of their cultural superiority. The
Europeans had forcefully tried to convert the indigenous Indians to Christianity at the cost of
making them cast their cultural practices into obliviousness. The different tribes, their various
languages and cultural habits were turned into an organic whole for administrative convenience.
The Europeans had also by means of treaties tried to displace and relocate the indigenous
Indians. The 1823 case of Johnson v. McIntosh made it mandatory for the natives to sell their
lands only to the American Government, if they wished to. In the 1831 case of Cherokee v.
Georgia, the American government had deprived the Indian tribes of their sovereignty and had
turned them into domestic and dependent nations. With the 1832 case of Worcester v. Georgia,
the right of the Indian tribes to settle disputes by themselves had also been taken away and that
was placed under the charge of the modern American legal system. Canada was established in
the year 1867 and by the 1876 Indian Act the power to decide upon all affairs of the natives were
made the prerogative of the Canadian Government. In this way, gradually the Indians were
relocated and displaced by the Europeans (King, 2017).
From the above discussion it becomes clear that the Canadian approach to deal with the
Indians was different from the American approach. The process of relocating and displacing the
Indians embarked upon by the Americans had been gradual which is very much evident in the
three judicial pronouncements of 1823 case of Johnson v. McIntosh, 1831 case of Cherokee v.
Georgia and 1832 case of Worcester v. Georgia. While the Canadian method had been more
drastic. The 1876 Indian Act just made the domination of the Canadian government on all

2TREATY MAKING WITH THE INDIANS
aspects of the lives natives official. The Canadian government had been dominating over the
natives ever since the inception of Canada in the year 1867 (King, 2017).
Several events had precipitated the making of Treaty 7. Firstly, the promise of the
Canadian government to build a railway and help the natives travel to western Canada had
impressed the natives. Secondly, the natives needed help from the Europeans to deal with the
epidemic that had been killing the buffaloes. Thirdly, of all the tribes the most influential
aboriginal man, Chief Crowfoot had convinced the tribes to give up on their agitation against the
railway construction project, and he himself had signed the Treaty 7 with the Crown
(Hildebrandt, Rider & Carter, 1996).
The significance of the treaties as per the elderly natives was its role in making the
process of surrendering land easier which was otherwise impossible as land was sacred. Only on
three occasions could treaty be resorted to for surrendering land, and they were to give land to
the in-laws on matrimonial ceremonies, as gift to a spiritually enlightened person and to settle
disputes peacefully (Hildebrandt, Rider & Carter, 1996).

3TREATY MAKING WITH THE INDIANS
References
Hildebrandt, W., Rider, D. F., & Carter, S. (1996). True Spirit and Original Intent of Treaty 7.
McGill-Queen's Press-MQUP.
King, T. (2017). The Inconvenient Indian Illustrated: A Curious Account of Native People in
North America. Doubleday Canada.